News

Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are increasingly attracting millions of users, but also cybercriminals, as a successful attack means maximum profit with little risk. This also applies to "ether," the most widely used cryptocurrency after Bitcoin. As a precautionary measure, researchers at the CISPA Helmholtz Center i.G. at Saarland University have developed a methodology for this cryptocurrency that not only finds security vulnerabilities, but also uses them to automatically develop attacks. The result: they found 815 security holes that allow 1564 attacks. The Saarbrucken computer scientists present their approach on Wednesday at the international USENIX Security Symposium in Baltimore, USA.

Partners

Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice at MMCI

Successful scientific work is based on integrity and on confidence in the researchers and researching institutes. As a framework to ensure that the principles of good scientific practice are met, the Cluster of Excellence MMCI follows the recommendations of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Max Planck Society.

The MMCI Rules of Good Scientific Practice

The principles of good scientific practice are essential for the process of expanding knowledge and earning respect from the public and fellow researchers.

However, these principles can be violated in many ways:

Mistrust and dishonestly in science cannot be prevented completely. But a set of rules will promote awareness and can limit dangers to good, responsible scientific practice.

Our set of rules below is based on the recommendations of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Max Planck Society.

These rules are made known to, and are binding for all members (from Principal Investigators to student helpers) of the Cluster of Excellence MMCI, and we follow a mentoring approach to implement the rules into our organizational day-to-day activity.

Be open to doubt about your own results and beware of "wishful thinking". Communicate your results to your colleagues and be open to criticism by other scientists.

Publications:

Cite the literature used and recognize the contributions of colleagues. Report findings that support the results, as well as findings that call them into question, and correct published mistakes appropriately. Acknowledge support from third parties.

Authorship:

The only persons who may be credited as (co-)authors of a paper are those, who made a considerable contribution to the results described and to the preparation of the manuscript. Do not ask for or accept "honorary authorships", and do not assert the (co-)authorship of another person without his or her consent.

Storing Primary Data:

If your publication depends on experimental work, store your primary data for at least 10 years. The data may be needed for reference, should the published results be called into question by others.

Personal Data:

If your research is based on experiments with test subjects, observe the regulations of the Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG). Replace personal data with case IDs, and sanitize the data if possible.

Reviewing:

Be careful and impartial. Don't delay reviews. Declare any conflicts of interest. If in doubt, don't review. Keep information obtained as a reviewer confidential.

Cooperation:

Avoid hindering scientific work of others, and be open to criticism and doubt expressed by other scientists and team colleagues.

Mentoring and Support:

Actively support the promotion of junior scientists' scientific qualifications. As a mentor, take care to convey your knowledge not only on scientific questions, but also on the rules of good scientific practice.

Leadership Responsibilities:

Group Leaders' Responsibilities:

As a group leader and supervisor, be aware that you are responsible for a proper work organization in your group, ensuring that the results achieved are monitored and appropriately critiqued regardless of any conserations or hierarchy. Integrate quality control into your group's workflow and offer methods to handle situations of conflict.

Guidence for Junior Scientists and Supervision:

All junior scientists should be informed of the rules of good scientific practice and the consequences of scientific misconduct. Appropriate care should be taken of junior scientists, in particular undergraduate diploma candidates, doctoral students, younger postdocs and those writing theses to qualify as university lecturers. primary contact persons should be in place. Appropriate cooperation with the university at which the candidate is to take the doctorate, when applicable, should be ensured (Thesis Committee).

Recommendations for Leaders of Large Groups:

Group leaderhip demands expertise in the field, presence and a broad perspective. In larger groups a regulated form of organization is recommended, e.g. through regular colloquiums. where this may no longer be psosible at the desired level because of the size of the group or for other reasons, the leadership functions must be delegated in such a way that the leadership division remains manageable.

The DFG recommends the appointment of a qualified contact person, who is independent of the institute's management, superiors and colleagues within the organization (Ombudsperson).

Our Ombudsperson is the person to consult in all matters concerning good scientific practice, and if scientific misconduct is suspected. The Ombudsperson serves also as a confidential point of contact for junior and senior researchers, who wish to speak about concerns in this regard (whistleblowers). The Ombudsperson starts the initial investigation and protects the whistleblower's identity.

Our current Ombudsperson for good scientific practice and doctoral research is:

Rules on General Scientific Practice of our Institutional Partners:

The rules as listed above account for every member of the Cluster of Excellence MMCI. However, as the Cluster of Excellence MMCI is hosted at Saarland University and has three institutional partners, there are additional rules which specifically account for our members employed at the respective institutions.